Appellate Tribunal clarifies attendance requirement for timely resolution of differential duty issue.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, considered a matter remitted by the Supreme Court for de novo consideration of the issue of differential duty. The Supreme Court directed expeditious disposal and required both parties to appear before the Tribunal for final disposal. Despite the appellant's absence, the respondent sought an adjournment, believing only parties needed to appear. The Tribunal clarified that both parties must attend for timely resolution. Consequently, the matter was adjourned to 21.1.2011 with strict instructions for prompt adjudication, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's directive.

---

---

Issues:
Remittance of matter by Supreme Court for de novo consideration of differential duty, direction for expeditious disposal, appearance of parties before Tribunal for final disposal.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi pertains to a matter remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for de novo consideration of the issue of differential duty. The Supreme Court, through its order dated 10th December 2010 in Civil Appeal No.5133 of 2009, set aside the earlier order dated 24th July 2008 and directed the Tribunal to pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court emphasized expeditious disposal of the matter and required the parties to appear before the Tribunal for further orders.

During the hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellants, while the respondent, represented by Shri B.K. Singh, Jt. CDR, requested a short adjournment, stating that the department was under the impression that appearance was only for the parties. However, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's order clearly mandated the appearance of both parties for final disposal on the specified date for expeditious resolution. As a result, the Tribunal adjourned the matter to 21.1.2011 with a strict directive that it would be taken up first on the board and not adjourned under any circumstances. This decision was made to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court's directions for the timely resolution of the issue at hand.

---